RUG Newsletter No. 8 - February 2014

Dear Friends and Neighbours,DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRENCHAY HOSPITAL SITE Our last letter in December was short. In contrast, however, this one is quite long as RUG has been very busy and much has happened since then. Nonetheless, it might be helpful to remind you of two very important facts before we describe what we’ve been doing. Firstly, the acceptance, on 10th December 2013, by South Gloucestershire Council (SGC) of GVA Grimley’s plan, on behalf of the North Bristol Health Trust (NBHT), to develop the Frenchay Hospital site was certainly not what local people had hoped for, especially when the following key features of the plan are considered: a) Still up to 490 houses – far too many. b) Traffic reduction predictions of 42% am and 43% pm seem quite unrealistic based, as it is, on 4 cars per 10 houses especially as no one knows the final overall usage to which the land will be subjected. c) The green open spaces to be transferred to a Management Company, not to the SGC, as hoped. d) A new school to be located on temporary car parks, the permission for which has expired but were conditional upon being returned to green open space, and associated caged playing fields that will consume most of the nature reserve. a) The long term future of listed buildings still unknown, although it has been stated that NBHT’s HQ, in Frenchay’s largest Georgian mansion, will be used, ‘in the short term’, as accommodation for senior management staff administering the new Hospital, 5 miles away at Southmead! b) The future of a Community Hospital remains uncertain and has been referred to the Secretary of State. One can’t help wondering why NBHT has not reverted to its original plan of retaining the present ‘double-decker’ section of Frenchay Hospital, which would save a vast amount of money. c) Space sufficient for 850 cars is to be retained for ‘at least a year’ to cater for staff, who will be located at Southmead, as a ‘Park and Ride’ scheme as the new Super Hospital is not able to cope with such numbers!Potential new homes: 650 (without future development of open spaces)Homes in Frenchay parish: 658 Secondly, SGC’s Principal Planner, Mike Luton, after spending more than a year studying the site, gave very clear advice regarding its future: a) Only a plan for the whole site should be considered. A partial plan cannot provide sufficient information to allow the full dynamics of the site to be assessed and thus its impact on Frenchay, it is therefore, not acceptable. See Mike Luton's report in Appendix 5 of the RUG Dossier on the OPA. b) Similarly, outline plans should be comprehensive, and with as much detail as possible. It would be a mistake to wait until the developer(s) submit their full plans as it would probably then be too late to make any changes other than minor ones and residents are likely to be fatigued by the whole process by then. Throughout most of 2012, and all of 2013, RUG was mindful of the above advice and hence a rejection of the current plan or, at least, a major revision of it has been our objective. To this end, we are now pursuing four different approaches, as described below: a) A Village Green application to secure most of the green open spaces b) Application to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) requesting a review of SGC’s management of the Outline Planning Application (OPA) c) Application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, to ‘call-in’ the OPA d) Possible instigation of a Judicial Review into the way the OPA has been dealt with by SGCVillage Green Application One very positive, and direct, way of ensuring that the majority of the green open spaces within the hospital site are retained for recreational purposes, not just for those who have enjoyed the park land for many years, but also for the benefit of the large number of new people from the development, is for Village Green status to be granted to them. Furthermore, this now appears the only way to safeguard, in perpetuity, those areas, known formally as Frenchay Park Land, which we feel SGC should hold in trust, and maintain, for the people of Frenchay as they do for the Common, and other public land, within our village. Applications are normally made by individuals and Bob Woodward, Spruce House, Malmains Drive, who has been a resident here for more than a half a century and who has extensive knowledge of NBHT, agreed to accept this challenge. It is a gargantuan task and, as Bob states “ it would not be possible without the enormous help of RUG”. We would like to remind you that the current OPA shows a much reduced green area, with the loss of most of the nature reserve and further states, firstly, that the land which remains will become the responsibility of a ‘Management Company’ and, secondly, that this land will not be built on. However, RUG is suspicious that, sometime in the future, as invariably happens in these situations, this latter statement could be challenged and feels strongly that only the status of Village Green could prevent future development. The Public Inquiry to determine the Village Green Application will take place on: 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st of March, between 10:00am – 4:30pm, at theGreenfield Centre,Park Avenue,Winterbourne,Bristol,BS36 1NJ We have been overwhelmed by, and are very grateful to, the large number of local people who have volunteered to be witnesses during the four-day hearing. However, if you are not a witness but are able to attend for an hour or two to demonstrate your support, it would be much appreciated by all, in particular those giving evidence. In addition, Mick Pick will be writing to you soon asking for letters of support to be sent to SGC. Please help, if you can. For ourselves and, most importantly, those who come after us: Let us make Frenchay the green lung in centre of the planned urbanisation of North-East BristolLocal Government Ombudsman (LGO) All who attended the Development Control Committee (DCC) meeting on 10th December were dismayed, not only that the OPA was accepted, but by the manner in which the decision was reached. Prior to the meeting, we had been advised by our local councillors that we should seek a meeting with the Chair of the DCC together with, at least, some of his colleagues, to explain what local residents’ thoughts and concerns were regarding the OPA. However, when asked, he refused to meet with anyone from the RUG committee or extend the request to others. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, we were told that questions would be asked of witnesses and, potentially, there would be intense debate between DCC members. In the event, witnessed by some 285 local people, no time for questions was allowed, and so none were asked, there was no debate and, as soon as the Case Officer’s report had been rushed through, an almost instant, pre-written, proposal to accept the OPA was read out. RUG was so appalled by the above that we immediately sought a meeting with our MP Jack Lopresti, who strongly advocated contacting the LGO, stating that ‘… the LGO are well aware of the games Councils play”. However, as with all such organisations, or so it seems, a complex process has to be followed. Furthermore, an application to the LGO has to be submitted before the ‘planning licence’ is granted to NBHT. This means that various legal/financial issues between SGC and NBHT have to be completed first. However, this could be quite soon, so we intend to submit our initial complaint shortly. We understand that potential outcomes from the above range from an apology from SGC to recommended changes to the OPA which, although the LGO is only an advisory body, we are told are usually accepted by Councils. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (SoS) The SoS has the power to ‘call-in’ any planning application and then either quash, or make significant changes to, them. However, only 106 plans have been ‘called-in’ since 2007 and we don’t know of the outcome of these. Furthermore, it is only generally projects of national importance that are considered. Nevertheless, Jack Lopresti has strongly advocated this route and has promised to progress it through Eric Pickles’ organisation. We intend to submit our initial complaint within the next week.Judicial Review (JR) On Friday, 31st January, five of us from RUG spent over 3hrs with a barrister, Peter Wadsley, whose expertise is in planning law, who was very supportive of the LGO and SoS approaches. However, a JR relies heavily on a specific law, or rule, having been broken and, although Peter Wadsley could see that a whole string of rules, and protocols, had been applied in such a manner that, collectively, resulted in a distorted and, thus, improper process having been applied to the OPA, he thought it prudent to wait for the results of the submissions to the LGO and SoS. But a JR is still possible if other means of obtaining a better result for Frenchay fail.Conclusion In conclusion, the RUG committee will be seeking further advice from our local MP, Jack Lopresti, regarding the LGO and SoS all because of the shameful way in which local residents have been virtually excluded from the planning process, despite their right under the Localism Act to be involved and the statements from SGC advocating public engagement which have not been put into practice. We are also seeking expert planning advice from Mark Wood, a highly recommended planning consultant, regarding the above endeavours. We are very grateful for the financial support already provided by local residents. We will report again soon regarding progress of the above, it might even be appropriate to hold another village meeting. However, we will wait first for any results, so please don’t lose faith but continue your tremendous support of RUG. One undeniable fact that remains true is that:It’s ‘Our Frenchay’ and The change is not for now – its forever!!!

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.